"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Psalm 68:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible page 726

Whereas a Psalm can be considered prophetic of Christ, prophecy was not the primary purpose of the Psalms. For instance, this passage from Psalm 68 was not written to speak directly of the future Messiah; rather, it was written primarily to speak of issues the psalmist faced while he was writing the Psalm. We see in this Psalm imagery that we also see to some degree in Jesus Christ, but that can't be seen as proof of any position for or against Mary's ever-virginity.

I understand what you're saying, but would have thought that prophesy in relation to the Lord was as primary as any other purpose of the psalms.

By definition, there can only be one primary purpose. There can be a number of secondary purposes, but only one primary purpose.

The quotation I have given is all related to Christ. We know the zeal of God's house consumed him - John 2:17. This is absolutely a direct prophesy.

So you think then that the first purpose of this Psalm was to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Him? Could not the same thing be said for Zerubabbel or Ezra or someone else who helped reconstruct the Temple after the exile?

We know also about the disgrace, humiliation and insults he endured. They called him a glutton, a drunkard, a blasphemer, a Samaritan (a dreadful insult, apparently), claimed he operated by the power of Satan, and was in fact possessed of a demon. Finally they had him nailed to the cross, a death of shame and total humiliation. I can give you scripture for all of this, but know you probably believe it.

We also know he became a "stranger to his brothers", in that they did not believe him - John 7:5. In view of this, I can't see why the thought of becoming "an alien to his mother's sons" should not relate to him as well. It's a big ask if that's what you're asking me to believe.

Anyway I was just reading the psalm the other day, and wondered what the perpetual virginity people thought of it

I think we need to understand the Psalms first within their historical context and only secondarily as prophecies of Christ. Even then, we need to be very careful not to draw from the Psalms proof texts for Christological dogmas that contradict the faith given us by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church.

I should have said "as important as", not "as primary as". No, it was not the primary purpose of the psalm to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Christ, but it did directly prophesy it. And that is as important as anything else in the psalm. Was this said of Ezra or Zerubabbel? Nowhere, as far as I know, is it related to anyone else but Christ in John 2. I do not see how the perpetual virginity of Mary can be a "Christological dogma". Which of the apostles gave it? I'm not going to argue with you about the importance of historical context, but would say prophecies of Christ are secondary to nothing

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Psalm 68:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible page 726

Whereas a Psalm can be considered prophetic of Christ, prophecy was not the primary purpose of the Psalms. For instance, this passage from Psalm 68 was not written to speak directly of the future Messiah; rather, it was written primarily to speak of issues the psalmist faced while he was writing the Psalm. We see in this Psalm imagery that we also see to some degree in Jesus Christ, but that can't be seen as proof of any position for or against Mary's ever-virginity.

I understand what you're saying, but would have thought that prophesy in relation to the Lord was as primary as any other purpose of the psalms.

By definition, there can only be one primary purpose. There can be a number of secondary purposes, but only one primary purpose.

The quotation I have given is all related to Christ. We know the zeal of God's house consumed him - John 2:17. This is absolutely a direct prophesy.

So you think then that the first purpose of this Psalm was to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Him? Could not the same thing be said for Zerubabbel or Ezra or someone else who helped reconstruct the Temple after the exile?

We know also about the disgrace, humiliation and insults he endured. They called him a glutton, a drunkard, a blasphemer, a Samaritan (a dreadful insult, apparently), claimed he operated by the power of Satan, and was in fact possessed of a demon. Finally they had him nailed to the cross, a death of shame and total humiliation. I can give you scripture for all of this, but know you probably believe it.

We also know he became a "stranger to his brothers", in that they did not believe him - John 7:5. In view of this, I can't see why the thought of becoming "an alien to his mother's sons" should not relate to him as well. It's a big ask if that's what you're asking me to believe.

Anyway I was just reading the psalm the other day, and wondered what the perpetual virginity people thought of it

I think we need to understand the Psalms first within their historical context and only secondarily as prophecies of Christ. Even then, we need to be very careful not to draw from the Psalms proof texts for Christological dogmas that contradict the faith given us by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church.

I should have said "as important as", not "as primary as". No, it was not the primary purpose of the psalm to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Christ, but it did directly prophesy it.

Was this said of Ezra or Zerubabbel? Nowhere, as far as I know, is it related to anyone else but Christ in John 2.

The fact that an apostle related the Psalms to Christ does not mean that the Psalms directly prophesied the Christ. Rather, it means that, knowing Christ, the apostle was able to see Christ as the fulfillment of the Psalms.

I do not see how the perpetual virginity of Mary can be a "Christological dogma".

Personally, I don't, either. The ever-virginity is certainly part of our Tradition, but it's never really been proclaimed in a way that can clearly be recognized as dogmatic, unlike the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the fact that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and when she gave birth to Christ. You could say that the ever-virginity of the Theotokos just isn't a part of our public message to the world.

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Psalm 68:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible page 726

Whereas a Psalm can be considered prophetic of Christ, prophecy was not the primary purpose of the Psalms. For instance, this passage from Psalm 68 was not written to speak directly of the future Messiah; rather, it was written primarily to speak of issues the psalmist faced while he was writing the Psalm. We see in this Psalm imagery that we also see to some degree in Jesus Christ, but that can't be seen as proof of any position for or against Mary's ever-virginity.

I understand what you're saying, but would have thought that prophesy in relation to the Lord was as primary as any other purpose of the psalms.

By definition, there can only be one primary purpose. There can be a number of secondary purposes, but only one primary purpose.

The quotation I have given is all related to Christ. We know the zeal of God's house consumed him - John 2:17. This is absolutely a direct prophesy.

So you think then that the first purpose of this Psalm was to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Him? Could not the same thing be said for Zerubabbel or Ezra or someone else who helped reconstruct the Temple after the exile?

We know also about the disgrace, humiliation and insults he endured. They called him a glutton, a drunkard, a blasphemer, a Samaritan (a dreadful insult, apparently), claimed he operated by the power of Satan, and was in fact possessed of a demon. Finally they had him nailed to the cross, a death of shame and total humiliation. I can give you scripture for all of this, but know you probably believe it.

We also know he became a "stranger to his brothers", in that they did not believe him - John 7:5. In view of this, I can't see why the thought of becoming "an alien to his mother's sons" should not relate to him as well. It's a big ask if that's what you're asking me to believe.

Anyway I was just reading the psalm the other day, and wondered what the perpetual virginity people thought of it

I think we need to understand the Psalms first within their historical context and only secondarily as prophecies of Christ. Even then, we need to be very careful not to draw from the Psalms proof texts for Christological dogmas that contradict the faith given us by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church.

I should have said "as important as", not "as primary as". No, it was not the primary purpose of the psalm to prophesy that the zeal of God's house would consume Christ, but it did directly prophesy it. And that is as important as anything else in the psalm. Was this said of Ezra or Zerubabbel? Nowhere, as far as I know, is it related to anyone else but Christ in John 2. I do not see how the perpetual virginity of Mary can be a "Christological dogma". Which of the apostles gave it? I'm not going to argue with you about the importance of historical context, but would say prophecies of Christ are secondary to nothing

"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

I think the OP asks a legitimate question. This is an Orthodox forum after all, and we should be able to defend our doctrines and answer sincere questions when asked. I think many good answers have already been given. I hope freddief will forgive the mocking responses and focus on the sound answers that have been provided thus far.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

I think the OP asks a legitimate question. This is an Orthodox forum after all, and we should be able to defend our doctrines and answer sincere questions when asked. I think many good answers have already been given. I hope freddief will forgive the mocking responses and focus on the sound answers that have been provided thus far.

Selam

With all due respect to the OP, if you ask me, this thread began rather with a statement, than with a question.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

Someone please explain to him about St. Joseph's previous marriage, and what half-siblings are?

but any children Joseph had by a previous marriage would not have been the Lord's half-siblings, unless Joseph himself sired the Lord. the Lord Jesus had no half-siblings

The Orthodox believe that He did.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably the first time you even heard about that, and I'll bet you didn't even do any research on what the Orthodox think about it, before coming to an Orthodox board. You just came to spam people.

look, if they did not have the same father (they didn't) and if they did not have the same mother (they didn't), then how could they be half-siblings?

Jesus is called the Son of David, even though Joseph was not his father. So is Jesus really the Son of David?

The Lord Jesus was indeed a son of David in that he was a descendant of David. He was not a descendant of Joseph

My point was, he was not biologically the Son of David, because he was not Joseph's descendant. Joseph was descendant of King David. By law, He (Christ) was; but biologically, He was not. The Theotokos was not a descendant of King David.

The point being; by law, Christ had half-siblings, even if it was not biologically so.

Someone please explain to him about St. Joseph's previous marriage, and what half-siblings are?

but any children Joseph had by a previous marriage would not have been the Lord's half-siblings, unless Joseph himself sired the Lord. the Lord Jesus had no half-siblings

The Orthodox believe that He did.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably the first time you even heard about that, and I'll bet you didn't even do any research on what the Orthodox think about it, before coming to an Orthodox board. You just came to spam people.

look, if they did not have the same father (they didn't) and if they did not have the same mother (they didn't), then how could they be half-siblings?

Jesus is called the Son of David, even though Joseph was not his father. So is Jesus really the Son of David?

The Lord Jesus was indeed a son of David in that he was a descendant of David. He was not a descendant of Joseph

My point was, he was not biologically the Son of David, because he was not Joseph's descendant. Joseph was descendant of King David. By law, He (Christ) was; but biologically, He was not. The Theotokos was not a descendant of King David.

The point being; by law, Christ had half-siblings, even if it was not biologically so.

Why are you saying Mary was not a descendant of David?

The genealogies in the book of Matthew speak of Joseph descending from David, not the Theotokos. When Joseph became the of Jesus legally, his ancestors became the ancestors of Christ legally. He inherited it.

Someone please explain to him about St. Joseph's previous marriage, and what half-siblings are?

but any children Joseph had by a previous marriage would not have been the Lord's half-siblings, unless Joseph himself sired the Lord. the Lord Jesus had no half-siblings

The Orthodox believe that He did.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably the first time you even heard about that, and I'll bet you didn't even do any research on what the Orthodox think about it, before coming to an Orthodox board. You just came to spam people.

look, if they did not have the same father (they didn't) and if they did not have the same mother (they didn't), then how could they be half-siblings?

Jesus is called the Son of David, even though Joseph was not his father. So is Jesus really the Son of David?

The Lord Jesus was indeed a son of David in that he was a descendant of David. He was not a descendant of Joseph

My point was, he was not biologically the Son of David, because he was not Joseph's descendant. Joseph was descendant of King David. By law, He (Christ) was; but biologically, He was not. The Theotokos was not a descendant of King David.

The point being; by law, Christ had half-siblings, even if it was not biologically so.

Why are you saying Mary was not a descendant of David?

The genealogies in the book of Matthew speak of Joseph descending from David, not the Theotokos. When Joseph became the of Jesus legally, his ancestors became the ancestors of Christ legally. He inherited it.

Yes, I understand this, but what about the genealogy in Luke? To say she is not descended from David, surely you need to refer to a genealogy

I do not see how the perpetual virginity of Mary can be a "Christological dogma". Which of the apostles gave it?

Oh, you are so utterly wrong on this!! From The Rudder:

Quote

The Virgin is called the Theotoke as having truly given birth to God, the accent being upon the last syllable, and not Theotocus, with the accent on the antepenult, which would signify “having been begotten by God spiritually,” as recusant and man-worshiping Nestorius called her. For in this manner all human beings have been begotten spiritually through and by virtue of baptism. But the Holy Virgin is said to be a Theotoke in two ways. One of these ways is on account of the nature and the substance of the God Logos which was given birth out of Her and which assumed humanity; and the other way is on account of the humanity assumed, which became deified as a result of that union and assumption, and attained to God-hood. (John Damascene, Concerning the Orthodox Faith, book 3, ch. 12, and elsewhere.)

The holy and ecumenical Sixth Council proclaimed Her a Virgin (in its act 11 by means of the libellus of the faith of Sophronius of Jerusalem) before giving birth, and in giving birth, and after giving birth: which is the same as saying ever-virgin. Concerning St. Epiphanius (Haer. 78) says: “Who, having said Mary, and having been asked whom he meant, ever failed to answer by adding the Virgin?” And St. Jerome (Dialogue Second against Pelagius) said: “Christ alone opened the closed portals of the Virgin’s womb, and thereafter these remained thenceforth shut (this word “opened” denotes that the Lord fecundated the womb, just as, in the opposite case, the womb is said to be shut in the sense that the womb is barren because of sterility: in accordance with that passage in Genesis saying: “God had shut fast every womb from without” (Gen. 20:18); or it may be said to denote “parted asunder,” but without injury, and not like the rest of infants). She is declared to be ever-virgin also the first Canon of the Sixth Ecum. C., held in the Trullus.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Personally, I don't, either. The ever-virginity is certainly part of our Tradition, but it's never really been proclaimed in a way that can clearly be recognized as dogmatic, unlike the dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the fact that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and when she gave birth to Christ. You could say that the ever-virginity of the Theotokos just isn't a part of our public message to the world.

There is a post of mine waiting to be approved which shows that the matter of the ever-virginity of the Mother of God was, indeed, proclaimed as a proper and necessary teaching of the Church in the Quinisext Council in trullo.

Moreover, the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is proclaimed and expressed in iconography, including that which predates this council, by the use of the three star motifs on her maphorion. Her ever-virginity is also proclaimed at every litany throughout the liturgical cycle, as well as in many ancient hymns, including Only-begotten Son, attributed to St Justinian the Great.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.It is a semantic moot point as to whether or not her ever-virginity is a matter of dogma, when it has so comprehensively infused every facet of Orthodox worship.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

I think the OP asks a legitimate question. This is an Orthodox forum after all, and we should be able to defend our doctrines and answer sincere questions when asked. I think many good answers have already been given. I hope freddief will forgive the mocking responses and focus on the sound answers that have been provided thus far.

Selam

Ahem. The OP has not asked a question, but made an open proclamation in the thread title and opening post. People here have indeed defended Orthodox doctrine, but the OP is having none of it.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

It does irritate me, I admit.

agreed

You mean like when we act like we don't think she's a goddess? Gasp! How horrible!!

Did you ever think about how it sounds to us when you call her all-holy, most blessed and glorious virgin pure, immaculate lady, queen of all, more radiant than the rays of sun and higher than the heavens, superior to angels, brighter than the firmament and purer than the sun's light, and so on and so forth?

And no, I won't capitalize any of that.

So lets see, sifting through the garbage, I see like 3 intelligible responses to the OP's argument. Good job people!

Am I the only one who finds it derogatory when Protestants say "mary" and don't even capitalize it? Something about the casual way they say or type it when speaking or typing something about her seems very disrespectful and I can't exactly put my finger on it.

It does irritate me, I admit.

agreed

You mean like when we act like we don't think she's a goddess? Gasp! How horrible!!

Did you ever think about how it sounds to us when you call her all-Holy, most blessed and glorious virgin pure, immaculate Lady, queen of all, more radiant than the rays of sun and higher than the heavens, superior to angels, brighter than the firmament and purer than the sun's light, and so on and so forth? The first word that comes to my mind is 'blasphemy', and no, I won't capitalize any of that.

So lets see, sifting through the garbage, I see like 3 intelligible responses to the OP's argument. Good job people!

None of that is treating her like she is a goddess. If you have such a problem with Orthodox veneration of Mary, I could recommend a book for you to read on it. Perhaps it could help you.

The Theotokos is worthy of honor because she gave birth to God the Word.

No. Rather blessed are they who hears His word and keep it.

I was listening just this morning to Fr. Tom Hopko's podcast on the Annunciation. He wonderfully put it this way, "Mary is not holy because she is the Mother of God, she is the Mother of God because she is holy."

I was listening just this morning to Fr. Tom Hopko's podcast on the Annunciation. He wonderfully put it this way, "Mary is not holy because she is the Mother of God, she is the Mother of God because she is holy."

Well, I am here for dialogue. I suppose I was just confused as to why you are on an Orthodox forum, that has a picture of the Theotokos holding Christ, if just to call their beliefs blasphemy?

Fair enough. Look, I've had my big sarcastic moment for the day, so I'll move on. Truth is, I'm an inquirer, I like Orthodoxy very much, but I'm not sold, That's why I'm here. Something about the attitude towards the OP being expressed on this thread made me feel the need to make a small point, though, everything from outright mockery from implying disrespect for the Virgin Mary by, what, calling her by her name? Forgetting to capitalize? Oh well!

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to see how your veneration isn't worship, I admit, but I haven't come to a conclusion on it yet, so hopefully you won't take my words to suggest that I'm intrenched in an anti-Orthodox point of view. I just wanted to make the point, think about how it must look from a Protestant's viewpoint.

I was listening just this morning to Fr. Tom Hopko's podcast on the Annunciation. He wonderfully put it this way, "Mary is not holy because she is the Mother of God, she is the Mother of God because she is holy."

Interesting. I like that.

Yes, he emphsized that the Theotokos' submission to God is what made her holy, and thus became the Theotokos. Of course there is always that passage in Luke where Jesus corrected the woman who said that the woman who bore him is blessed. Jesus reminds us that it was her total submission to God's will, her total dedication of her life to God that made her blessed, and because of that she was made the Theotokos.

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to see how your veneration isn't worship, I admit, but I haven't come to a conclusion on it yet, so hopefully you won't take my words to suggest that I'm intrenched in an anti-Orthodox point of view. I just wanted to make the point, think about how it must look from a Protestant's viewpoint.

Just as a bit of an aside, I'll point out that many of us here spent most of our lifetime as Protestants (for me it was over 50 years). We have a pretty good idea of a Protestant's viewpoint. And quite frankly, you are correct in that understanding the role of the Theotokos - which leads to how we venerate her - is very frequently the most difficult hurdle. It does take time. The unlearning of beliefs is often a much more difficult process that the learning of new concepts. Be patient. Pay special attention to our understanding of the Incarnation as expressed in our hymns. Keep praying.

I think the OP asks a legitimate question. This is an Orthodox forum after all, and we should be able to defend our doctrines and answer sincere questions when asked. I think many good answers have already been given. I hope freddief will forgive the mocking responses and focus on the sound answers that have been provided thus far.

Selam

Ahem. The OP has not asked a question, but made an open proclamation in the thread title and opening post. People here have indeed defended Orthodox doctrine, but the OP is having none of it.

I wonder why, when people like you come here to roast him. The call to always be ready to give a defense of our faith does not always require such belligerence.

Someone please explain to him about St. Joseph's previous marriage, and what half-siblings are?

but any children Joseph had by a previous marriage would not have been the Lord's half-siblings, unless Joseph himself sired the Lord. the Lord Jesus had no half-siblings

The Orthodox believe that He did.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. This is probably the first time you even heard about that, and I'll bet you didn't even do any research on what the Orthodox think about it, before coming to an Orthodox board. You just came to spam people.

look, if they did not have the same father (they didn't) and if they did not have the same mother (they didn't), then how could they be half-siblings?

Jesus is called the Son of David, even though Joseph was not his father. So is Jesus really the Son of David?

The Lord Jesus was indeed a son of David in that he was a descendant of David. He was not a descendant of Joseph

Are you aware that proselytizing isn't allowed here? Why did you come to an Orthodox board to 'prove' to Orthodox people that what they believe is wrong?

Freddie isn't proselytizing, so please stop playing Miss Moderator.

All right, but I thought the thread title made it clear enough.

I notice that you aren't Orthodox, either, so why are you fighting so hard to defend the Orthodox Faith on this thread?

I didn't think I was. I just thought Freddie may post stuff like Alfred P. used to do, and get himself in more confusion than he has to, simply because Freddie didn't post very much before, and maybe he hasn't seen some of our earlier discussions on the subject. I mean, it just sounded like he didn't know what he was getting into.

To be honest, biro, I don't think your tactics on this thread are helping any.

Biro's just getting a bit too Inquisitional for an Orthodox forum. This is the kind of help that Catholics offer when they join our forums.

"For Your sake I bore disgrace; humiliation covered my face. I am become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons; for the zeal of Your house consumed me, and the insults of those who disgraced You fell on me"

Psalm 68:8-10, Orthodox Study Bible page 726

As others have pointed out, your interpretation of this prophecy would imply that this prophecy was not fulfilled. If "mother's sons" implied that she gave birth to other children, you would have to believe that she had given birth to St. James (who is referred to as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19) and St. Jude (who refers to himself as "brother of James" in Jude 1:1). If you read the Book of Acts and the epistles of Sts. James & Jude, you would know that they were faithful followers of the Lord and did not consider him a stranger and alien.

Yet, John 19:26-27 states:

Quote

When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

The Lord entrusted His mother to His disciple because He was her only Son and she had given birth to no other. Sts. James and Jude were children of St. Joseph from his former marriage. That St. Jude refers to himself as "a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James", rather than "brother of the Lord", is on account of the fact that he was the son of St. Joseph and not of the mother of the Lord, and on account of his humility. St. James also does not refer to himself as "brother of the Lord", but is referred to as such by St. Paul.

That the Psalm you quote refers to Israel is shown in many places in the New Testament, for instance John 1:11-13:

Quote

He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

"His own", meaning Israel, on the whole rejected the Lord as the Messiah. However, "as many as received him" refers to those who did believe in Him unto salvation, both of Israel and among the Gentiles. The children of Israel were "His people", "his brothers", and "his mother's sons", and they as a people did not recognize the Lord when he came. This is demonstrated by the persecutions that the Christians endured as described in the Book of Acts. However, the Book of Acts also confirms that some of Israel (a minority for sure) did accept Christ, including St. Paul and the Apostles.

St. Augustine comments on this verse from the Psalms as follows:

Quote

“An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother” (ver. 8 ). To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so? Why did they not acknowledge? Why did they call Him an alien? Why did they dare to say, we know not whence He is? “Because the zeal of Thine House hath eaten Me up:” that is, because I have persecuted in them their own iniquities, because I have not patiently borne those whom I have rebuked, because I have sought Thy glory in Thy House, because I have scourged them that in the Temple dealt unseemly:2942 in which place also there is quoted, “the zeal of Thine House hath eaten Me up.” Hence an alien, hence a Stranger; hence, we know not whence He is. They would have acknowledged whence I am, if they had acknowledged that which Thou hast commanded. For if I had found them keeping Thy commandments, the zeal of Thine House would not have eaten Me up. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXIX.html

You mean like when we act like we don't think she's a goddess? Gasp! How horrible!!

I don't think that's treating her like a goddess; I think the problem lies in culture. America is very, eh, what's the word? Lazy and casual. The most respect we show to someone is a handshake. So when you see others showing respect to someone in a different way, you immediately assume worship.

Quote

Did you ever think about how it sounds to us when you call her all-holy, most blessed and glorious virgin pure, immaculate lady, queen of all, more radiant than the rays of sun and higher than the heavens, superior to angels, brighter than the firmament and purer than the sun's light, and so on and so forth?

It sounds pretty nice, thank you very much. Much better than when Protestants just disrespect her by casually saying "mary" or going to great lengths to minimalize her role in the Incarnation because of rabid anti-Catholicism.

An alien to my mother's sons talks about alienation from all Jewish people, not a literal "sons of Mary". Besides, if Jesus was rejected by his brothers, why was James the bishop of Jerusalem? Why did he have an Epistle in the Bible?

well if its a question of alienation from all Jewish people, as you suggest, how come James was bishop in Jerusalem? how come there was a church in Jerusalem for that matter?

Read Acts thoroughly and then come back to me. It is all there.

I know whats in Acts. please read carefully what i wrote, and the point i was answering

I read it carefully. Clearly you do not know Acts, otherwise you woulnd't ask questions like how there was a Church in Jerusalem or why James was the bishop there.

oh dear - you were the one who first asked why James was bishop of Jerusalem you seem to have missd my point completely

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

You mean like when we act like we don't think she's a goddess? Gasp! How horrible!!

Did you ever think about how it sounds to us when you call her all-holy, most blessed and glorious virgin pure, immaculate lady, queen of all, more radiant than the rays of sun and higher than the heavens, superior to angels, brighter than the firmament and purer than the sun's light, and so on and so forth?

And no, I won't capitalize any of that.

So lets see, sifting through the garbage, I see like 3 intelligible responses to the OP's argument. Good job people!